Karl Poppers Philosophy of Science

Poppers critique of Logical Positivism. The

failure of Logical Positivism to censure pseudo-
sciences such as Marxism and Psychoanalysis.
Similarity between Popper and the Logical
Positivists: both upheld the superior status of
scientific knowledge in the Enlightenment
tradition.

Karl Raimund Popper
(1902-1994)
Biography
Enrolled in the Pedagogic Institute
Met Kurt Buhler and Heinrich Gomprez
1922 been in contact with members form the
Vienna Circle
1928 received his PhD from University of
Vienna.
1935 1936 received invitations to England
Biography (contd.)
1937 emigrated to New Zealand
1946 took up readership in Logic and
Scientific Method in LSE
1949 received professorship in LSE
Retired in 1969
Died on 17 September 1994 in London
Poppers Concept of Falsification
The concept of falsification. Falsification as a
criterion of demarcation between science and
pseudo-science.
In order for a theory to have the status of a
scientific theory, it must be falsifiable.
Why Marxism, Psychoanalysis and Astrology are
regarded as pseudo-science.
The role of empirical data in relation to theories;
should be able to falsify and not only to confirm
theories.

Poppers theory of scientific method
We start from a hypothesis or theory, not from
empirical facts.
A hypothesis/theory is a conjecture (a guess),
which has to be empirically tested before it can
be accepted or confirmed.
Hypothetico-deductivism as the logical form of
scientific methodology.
Conjectures and refutations as forming the
method of science.

Poppers Theory of Scientific Change
It is a historical fact that scientific theories change over time,
and do not remain static.
Example: change from Newtons theory to Einsteins theory,
from Ptolemys to Copernicus astronomical theory.
Question: Is it a good or bad thing that scientific theories
undergo change?
Answer 1: For critics of science, scientific change implies that
science cannot give us certainty in knowledge. Therefore we
cannot believe in science, because what is true today might no
longer be true tomorrow.
Answer 2: However, for Popper, scientific change is a good
thing. It is good because: (i) it shows the rationality of science
(ii) the progressiveness of science.
For Popper, as scientific theories change, they progress
towards the truth.

Thomas Kuhns Philosophy of Science
Criticised previous philosophers of science for giving
an idealized and not a true picture of science.
In order to have a credible philosophical view of
science, we must look at science as it was really
practised. So we need to know the HISTORY of
science.
Looking at the history of science, he came up with
the idea of the structure of scientific revolutions.
That is, the development of science seems to follow a
certain pattern, marked by brief periods of
scientific revolutions and long periods of normal
science.
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

1922 : July 18,Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, US
1949 : PhD in Physics Harvard Univ.
1954 : Guggenheim Fellow
1961 : Full Prof. Of History Univ. of Calif. Berkeley
1979 : Prof. Phil. & History of Sc. - MIT
1996 : Died at the age of 73 of cancer in Cambridge
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
-written while a graduate student at Harvard
Thomas
Kuhns
Model of The
Structural
Development
of Science
Pre - Paradigm
Normal science
Paradigm
Anomalies
Crisis
Revolution
New Normal Science
Kuhns Theory of Scientific Change
Change in scientific theory is to be explained in
terms of psychology and sociology, not logic or
philosophy.
Kuhn used ideas from gestalt psychology to explain
change of scientific theory.
For example, change from Ptolemaic theory (earth-
centred) to Copernican theory (sun-centred),
involved a change in perspective.
When theories change in science, this does not mean
that we are moving or progressing closer towards
the truth.




PTOLEMY COPERNICUS
Celestial Models by Ptolemy and Copernicus

Mary Evans Picture Library/Photo Researchers, Inc.
1




The Ptolemaic and Copernican Models
in Astronomy

Ptolemy Copernicus
(Earth Centred) (Sun Centred)

Gestalt Switch
Gestalt switch : What were ducks in the scientists world
before the revolution are rabbits
afterward
Kuhns Theory of Incommensurability
Two scientific theories or paradigms cannot be
compared since there is no common ground or
standard by which they can be compared.
The notion of incommensurable is borrowed
from mathematics, which means no common
standard of measure.
So for Kuhn, we cannot say that Newtons theory
is better than Aristotles theory, or Einsteins
theory is better than Newtons theory.
Popper Kuhn
1. Science is open and critical. Science
corrects itself through criticism and
revision/correction.
Science is closed and dogmatic.
Scientific education is a dogmatic
rather than a critical process where the
student has to accept the truth of
scientific theories and not criticize
them.
2. Theory-change in science shows the
rationality of science. Theory-change
viewed in terms of logic and philosophy.
The rationality of scientific change is
explained in terms of falsification. The
theory which is more falsifiable, but later
confirmed by experiment, is the
accepted theory. Also, scientists based
their decision on logic and evidence in
deciding which theory to accept.
Theory-change in science is not
determined by rational factors such as
logical argument and empirical
evidence. Theory change should be
understood in terms of psychology and
sociology.
3. The development of science is a
progression towards the truth. When a
theory changes, its truth-content
increases and its falsity-content
decreases.
The development of science only shows
progress in terms of problem-solving,
and not in terms of getting closer to the
truth. No common basis on which we
could compare between theories and
say that one is closer to the truth than
the other (incommensurability thesis).
4. His view of science is influenced more
by revolutionary changes in science,
such as the change from Newtons to
Einsteins theory.
Focused more on normal science, i.e.
science as it is usually or normally
practised where paradigms guide the
research or problem-solving process.
COMPARISON BETWEEN POPPER AND KUHN